User talk:Irishguy/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Thanks for taking care of this guy. He was beginning to tire me out. :P -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) IrishGuy talk 00:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

You recently blocked my user name JungleEdgeStill. I received no warning. I saw a page that said I was supposed to email you. I could not find your email. What should I do. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You received a warning by having every other harrassing sock blocked. Find somewhere else to play. Enough. IrishGuy talk 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi- We are co-producing the inaugural New York Photo Festival in 2008 with the VII Photo Agency (, yet you and another individual keep deleting our Wiki entry of who we are; we have eliminated all promotional mentions of ourselves, and the facts included in our entry are documented; many of our contemporaries in independent book publishing have similar listings, including Distributed Art Publishers (, a company I cofounded in 1990, so I am wondering what gives.

Thanks, Daniel PowerDaniellpower 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about PowerHouse Books and PowerHouse Arena. Both were blatant advertisements written by people with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to advertise your company. IrishGuy talk 01:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

my edits reverted ("multiple links to the same website"?)

Totally nonsense and you are only drawing the attention away. and and thousands of others on wikipedia are also "multiple links to the same website" just because most of the systemized websites on this planet unquestionably do have links to their motherpage/homepage, with hyperlink name like "Back" or "Back To Homepage" or "Home". And you really call that spam? By the way your new self-styled definition ("multiple links to the same website") does not match the official wiki definition of spamming.

And you are the one who make false accusation. Read the wiki's definition you posted yourself "Adding the same link to many articles". Same link in simple english means identical link, different pages with link to one mother homepage(including,,,, ....etc) do not count.

What I've done have nothing to do with Wikipedia's official definition of spamming. I hereby recover all my edits.

Stop making excuses. Go back to the wikipedia official def. of spamming. - 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, by "same link" it means "same website". You were spamming. Don't do it again. IrishGuy talk 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

no, those are different links with different URLs, as I posted it already as proof. With different contents and different articles, are you saying "Mary's Viginity", "Bible as sufficient", "Purgatory", "Papal Infallability" are identical?

Are <> and <> "one link"? I am not sure how many more excuses you want to make.

You read the pages YOURSELF and undo what you have falsely done! - 03:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were bulk adding links to That is spamming. IrishGuy talk 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

NO, those are different pages and different URLs, only the domain names are the same: CARM-DOT-ORG.

First of all, I did not post </CARM.ORG/>. What I added are different web articles on different HTML pages written by CARM apologist[s]. By your self-styled definition why didn't you remove those thousand of then? It's hypocrtical! See what I showed you as proof (in Archive 18). Those are DIFFERENT ARTICLES!!!! READ THE ARTICLES YOURSELF!!

Secondly, see Wiki's definition of spamming: "Same link to many articles". It's Link ! Not Site ! A single site usually comes with many links.,, (etc.) are sites comprising millions of links. <> and <> are hardly the "same link"

Thirdly, I notice that on my own talk page you falsely accused me of adding "inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". I hereby insist that what I added are fully on-topic per wikipedia's rules. For example

"inappropriate"? 03:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, read WP:SPAM. You were adding links to the same website in multiple articles without actually adding any content. You were spamming. The next time you post here, it will be deleted. I am tired of your harassment. IrishGuy talk 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell me which verse on WP:SPAM I have violated then! It is you who quote the exact wiki definition of spam "Same Link to many articles". And you fail to prove that what I have added are one single link.

Few hours ago I have referred this case, as a complain, to another administrator and request for advise/mediation.

And don't try to threaten me like this "The next time you post here, it will be deleted. I am tired of your harassment".

You only told me to read this "WP:" and read that "WP:" but FAILED to prove what exact guideline I have violated. Feel free to delete my comment, but it would only show that you have no credibility at all.

It is not harrassment, it is about the quality of your administratorship.

Like it or not, instances long exist on wikipedia when CARM articles are widely used as external/supporting sources:

It means the wikipedia community does't classify CARM articles as Spam. (and of course you all along show us no evidence of spamming). Time for you POV pusher to hand off. Have a nice day.-- 08:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately twisting words. I never said that CARM was a bad site. I said the mass additions of links to the same website is spamming...and it is. You were even blocked today for spamming. Stop. IrishGuy talk 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review note - Fan Wars (2008 film)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fan Wars (2008 film). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bryan Seecrets 09:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry.

I wasn't trying to ignore wikipedia's guidelines, but I'm not very sure how to comply to it. Sometimes the guidelines seem vague and unclear to me. And if there is anything I can do to have my article on wikipedia, please tell me. I'm very very sorry, and I didn't know I could be banned for doing this. Antimatter15 14:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you

get rehind of the gamers site wiki? its a good site i found why did you do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardboiled1234 (talkcontribs)

It was an advertisement for a completely non-notable website. IrishGuy talk 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why do you removed my page considering embedded linux PC?

Please explain why do you removed my page considering embedded linux PC? Do you know how to hard to write an article? I meant that wikipedia doesn't show behaviour of dmoz where editors delete competitors products 'just in case' Kdulep 00:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fit-PC was a blatant advertisment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for advertisement. IrishGuy talk 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well you think that the open source is a venue? Then wikipedia itself blatant advertisment!

Do you know that at the time of writing there is no tiny PC like this device that can run linux, windows, have low power consumption. And this device is newborn.. You probably do not know what it is. Regards. Have nice deletions. I don't like affirmative editors. I blame you for speedy judjement. Sorry if it bothers you. Nothing personal. I think you nice person but don't understood (mis-understanding not a problem) that your comp produces much noise and eat kilowats per day. This comp can run on a 12v automobile power batter with converter.. See also [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdulep (talkcontribs)

Please stop attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise. IrishGuy talk 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop to blame me for advertising. How can I make description article about a device that is not an adverising? I should use another name? another specifications? I have no connection with product I'm not fan of it. I just want people know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdulep (talkcontribs)
The product must have notability and importance. The article you linked above doesn't even mention that product. IrishGuy talk 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time editing wikipedia.. Probably you right there are alternatives.. Ok I'll try to do my best but anyway you probably may to undo delete because article about certain embedded PC, it should links to other Mini. Worth mention that this device uses dimensions 120 x 116 x 40 mm rather than Mini-ITX 17 x 17 cm low-power motherboard

-- Notable links are:

This tiny fanless PC, roughly the size of a paperback book, consumes a mere 3 to 5 watts of power and comes with Linux preinstalled. 1670 Digs.. So that is not only my point of view. [ Digg article about ]

Compulab has introduced a fanless PC, roughly the size of a paperback book, that consumes a mere 3 to 5 watts of power. The "fit-PC" comes with Linux preinstalled, and is intended to fit where conventional PCs won't, according to the Haifa, Israel-based company. Tiny PC sips power, runs Linux

Zonbu is a compact, ultra low power mini Specifications: Intel-compatible ultra-low power CPU 512 MB RAM + 4GB flash-based local storage Graphics up to 2048 x 1536 (16 million colors, 75 Hz). Hardware graphics and MPEG2 acceleration PC-compatible ports for keyboard and mouse 6 USB ports to plug-and-play all standard USB accessories Broadband ready: 10/100 Mbps Ethernet built-in Good things come in small boxes

Regarding Google 80% power initiative [7] I meant that this device itself consumes very little power compare to todays PC with 220-to-12v ineffective power conversion Kdulep 02:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The nytimes link, again, has absolutely nothing to do with this product. The other two links are the same link and they both go to a blog which is not a reliable source. IrishGuy talk 07:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


At what point will it not be considered "blatant advertisement" to write an article about Avaron? I noticed several other online RPGS like Tibia and Astonia have wikipedia articles but haven't been deleted for "blatant advertisement", even though these are pay to play and Avaron is free. Please clear this up for me. The game has little to gain except acknowledgment that it even exists at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokkorb0mb (talkcontribs)

The game, by your own admission, doesn't even exist. The article stated that it was ...currently under development by The Controls. The first and only game in production by The Controls.... How is that notable? IrishGuy talk 07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

New Here

Myriad Software - Trying to start a neutral encyclopedic article I instead produced Blatant Advertising... Next deletion was 'no content' I tried to place as little information as possible so another deletion wouldn't occur. I put in a headline. My hope was then to follow with edit, enable discussion, , history, and above all, the likelihood of no further deletion. With all the encouragement to be bold on Wikipedia to the new guy, that's not what it means, dose it? Bold in text instead, I take it. Please Advice Maxjoins 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


... your userpage, as it was requested on WP:RPP. Hope you don't mind. Actually, it was 10pm and I was standing in a long line in Safeway at the check-out. Checked my watchlist on my iPhone & set the protection. Just had to mention that, due to the geek-factor :) - Alison 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I just looked through the Quite a few trolls, eh? IrishGuy talk 07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you were getting hit pretty hard. Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who reverted. :) IrishGuy talk 07:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I left the prot on indefinite, so feel free to unprot when you like :) - Alison 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. IrishGuy talk 10:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on grudge vandal

A series of BellSouth IPs have been vandalizing articles you list on your userpage. I have semi-protected the list of articles you started, but a longer-term solution might be necessary. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted my userpage and then recreated it without the article lists. Maybe that will help. IrishGuy talk 19:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. The person behind these IPs also left a note at my talk page [8], it appears that you have run afoul of someone with too much time on his hands and a susceptibility to vengeful tantrums. So, good luck :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is the guy who wrote this: The Guman Curriculum. He later went on to create an army of sockpuppets to harass me. Now he has gone back to just using his IP addresses. He can change them quickly so blocking the socks never slowed him down. Thanks for all the help. I'm sorry so many people had to watch so many articles because of this. :( IrishGuy talk 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Biographical article that does not assert significance

Dear IrishGuy! You have deleted the article about San Base with this verdict. How can you judge it? Are you art critic or so? San Base is quite wellknown artist. Look at for more informatin. Or google "San Base". Regards, Alexander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashenko (talkcontribs)

The article made no assertion of notability or importance. It was completely unreferenced. IrishGuy talk 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article made no assertion of notability or importance

Why? I suppose so you have not enough information. For instance the article about San Base (The Dynamics of Change) has been published as a COVER story in the current IEEE Computer Graphics magazine (July/August 2007 Vol. 27, No. 4 ISSN: 0272-1716)

It was completely unreferenced. This article has been made only two hours ago! Use google - you will find a lot of references to San Base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashenko (talkcontribs)

You wrote the article, it is your job to reference it, not mine. I also note that you have had other articles deleted which were created solely to publicize this person. Do you have a conflict of interest here? IrishGuy talk 00:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has references. Take a look at the text. Concerning: you have had other articles deleted which were created solely to publicize this person. I made article about Dynamic Painting but not about San Base. I'm sure, San Base is one of the most revolutionary artists of today. I think that wikipedia MUST contain the information about this artist as well as about Dynamic Painting - the art form of a new digital millennium. Regards: Lashenko

The sole link/reference in your Dynamic Painting article was to San Base. How is that not promotional? As for the San Base article, no there were no references at all. IrishGuy talk 01:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you restore the original text? There were as minimum 5 references and two links from 'External links' section. If it is very critical I can make references from almost any words. I used article George Grie as a prototype. Lashenko

Steve Weber

I did try to edit the main page--how does one after clicking to "edit" make text appear as is? I clicked on the "ignore wiki formatting" but page remained encrpyted. Would RATHER delete false statement than write correction. Please advise. Thank you. Judith Frederick —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealDealonWEBER (talkcontribs)

What information do you wish to have removed? IrishGuy talk 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
IrishGuy Is it within Wiki regulations to put external link such as a site established by Steve Weber where his fans would be able to have on going dialog with him? It is a yahoo group. The "edit" didn't work at the bottom of the page--but the encryption did not appear when I used the "edit" at the top of the page. I am a bit confused about rules of "people and groups" as the main page on "The Holy Modal Rounders" is about a musical band. What would be permissible to write when clicking on "Steve Weber" which is blank--whereas clicking on Peter Stampfel[other co-founder of the band] is quite lenghty and appears to be self written. I have NO quarrel with you--have much respect for Wikipedia and am sure no other web site is as concerned about facts and clearly does not want mis-information as it is a source of genuine information that millions of people rely on--very unlike other web sites! Thank you, Judith
It would be inadviable for you to write the article as you have a clear conflict of interest. Additionally, per WP:EL discussion forums and mailing lists shouldn't be linked within articles. IrishGuy talk 02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Move this from the page which was recreated. Can you get her to post on a talk page, rather than on the article, which we have to keep deleting? Benea 02:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I will try. IrishGuy talk 02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


I want to correct the spelling of my user name. It is 'Lughlamhfhada' but should be 'Lughlámhfhada'. As an Administrator I understand that you may be able to help. Lughlamhfhada 08:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to change your username to correct the spelling, you can request a name change here: Wikipedia:Changing username. IrishGuy talk 20:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Courtesy for Irishguy

Irishguy abuses his powers as an admin. Taking a look at his archives, he deletes anything that HE deems non-notable. Many of the articles he has deleted could have helped multiple people trying to find information on that subject. Wikipedia is not just for persons that have won awards, have been on television, etc.

When people come on his user page seeking answers to why their page was deleted, 99% of the time Irishguy sidesteps the question, instead referring to Wiki criteria, not providing an appropriate, helpful response. Even long conversations between him and users whose pages have been deleted result in endless citations of criteria instead of a concise reason.

The basis for his deletions are nearly always his feelings toward the subject. Articles that are well written on known subjects are deleted simply because HE thinks it lacks important. He is inconsistent and abuses his admin powers. I, along with many other users (evidenced by his lack of courtesy in conversations in his talk page archives) feel that his admin powers should be removed.

No, I am not doing this out of spite because he deleted my page, I am doing this because he shows no respect for other users that create pages that he deletes. If you need cold, hard evidence, look at the hundreds of conversations he has had on his talk pages. You will only rarely find persons that thank him, not due to their lack of courtesy, but because of the lack of his. Don't believe me? Look at the archives. Jameseyx 16:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If these [9], [10], [11], [12] are indicative of your contribution to Wikipedia, I can see why you would be frustrated with Irishguy. Into The Fray T/C 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly see why the last three links are indicative of vandalism or otherwise inappropriate behavior. Fat Bitch was for some reason just deleted, however the content was of constructive nature. The movie Fat Bitch has been mentioned several times in 30 Rock. The quote from Ms. Parton is real and has been said many times (in fact several articles link to it; I created the page so there would be an article for the links). On top of that, Heavens to Betsy has absolutely nothing to do with vandalism. If you would please explain to me why the last three are indicative of vandalism, I would be more than happy. As for the first link, I was simply angry. I apologize. At least I can take responsibility for my actions instead of sidestepping the question.

The quote belongs in the Dolly Parton article or in wikiquotes, not as a standalone article. And a TV series that was never released and thus never seen... well how can you pad that out to an article? Baseball Bugs 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As a student, I tend to view Wikipedia as a resource for information for not only personal interest but for papers and such. I do realize that everything on here is not always accurate, so I will often use the links to sources. I do feel, however, that an article like the one on Heavens to Betsy would be very useful for a paper on Dolly Parton chronicling her career. This show is a step for her into the world of television, and thus I believe that the article is completely worthy. Jameseyx 19:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's enough information to pad out an article with (which there isn't, at present) you're best off to set up that page as a redirect to the Dolly Parton page. That covers both your argument about the need to find the info, and the argument against it being separate because there isn't enough material. Baseball Bugs 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for providing me with an alternative. --Jameseyx 19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention - citations. Be prepared to prove there ever was such a show, in case someone challenges it with a "fact" tag. Or better yet, provide the citation up front, to avoid that kind of issue. Baseball Bugs 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons why there are angry messages on this talk page. First, vandals hate getting caught. Second, people who repeatedly create articles that don't belong in an encyclopedia always argue that they should be included with no basis at all. Contrary to your assertion that the basis for deletions is always my personal feelings toward the subject, the actual basis is policy....policies that I point out to the authors when they complain here. Policies that are routinely ignored simply because the author really really wants an article for his non-notable band/school project/YouTube page/etc. IrishGuy talk 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but I think that some of the people are annoyed that you simply reference the guidelines as opposed to detailing why exactly the page was deleted. And I'm not talking about generic "non-notable" or "lack or assertion of importance" claims. I have, however, seen other admins do the same.
On a side note, could someone please explain to me what an assertion of importance is? If it means to show the importance of the subject in writing, then I believe the fine line between assertion of importance and spam or bias is why many new Wikipedians have problems.
Back to the subject: You are right about the vandal thing. As for notability, since there are only 1,300 admins, that means only 1300 people can decide what is notable and what isn't. I understand that requests for deletion by non admins, and things like that could sway an actual administrator to delete the article, but how common is that really? --Jameseyx 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, notability can easily be illustrated by showing that it has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. While only admins can delete, anyone can put an article up for Speedy Deletion. So it isn't really true that only 1300 people decide what is or isn't notable. After a deletion, anything can be brought back up for deletion review and any editor can comment there not just admins. IrishGuy talk 23:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


hey, i'm just trying to put up information about our group. you've allowed a page about The Wabash Commentary as well as other student magazines and newspapers. I'm not sure what's different about The Wabash Conservative Union.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Some-guy0010 (talkcontribs)

You have been spamming links to the group all over wikipedia, you continue to recreate an article about a non-notable college group that you are affiliated with in blatant violation of WP:COI. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm not spamming, i'm just putting about information where relevant. The magazine is relevant, so i put a link to the wiki page in "phoenix". it was created from The Wabash Commentary so i put a link there. i say, if you delete our paper, delete The Wabash Commentary or any of the other hundreds of papers here. What's the difference?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Some-guy0010 (talkcontribs)

Frankly, The Wabash Commentary might not be notable but that doesn't open the door for more non-notable articles. IrishGuy talk 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, basically we're just being screwed over because we're new? I don't get it. Just allow me to put it up or delete the others. I'm not spamming, just putting information up about our group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Some-guy0010 (talkcontribs)

You are hardly being "screwed". Please read WP:NOTE for notability guidelines. IrishGuy talk 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ted Atherton Deleted

If you'd read it you would find it was not cut and pasted but written individually and contained information not available anywhere else on the web (examples: the fact that Mr. Atherton wrote the song his character sang in "Nothing Too Good for a Cowboy", the fact that he is 6'3 not 6'2 as most sources list). Sadly, when working with biographical sources, all of it is going to sound basically the same. The same with credits for filmographies. A list of an actor's work is going to look much the same regardless of who compiles it.

Please restore.

Thank you,

Ebony_Silvers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebony silvers (talkcontribs)

Actually, part was a word for word copy of this, part was a word for word copy of this etc. Please don't add material taken from other websites. IrishGuy talk 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those were source materials, yes. They were reworded. I will reword further. Thank you. Ebony_Silvers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebony silvers (talkcontribs)

They weren't reworded. They were plaguerized. Please don't. IrishGuy talk 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War accusation

Re: Ireland. The problem is entirely of your making. You and others stubbornly refuse to allow the fact that Ireland is one of the British Isles to be recorded on the Ireland entry despite the fact that this is correctly so recorded on the British Isles entry and elsewhere on Wiki. Despite that fact that every authoritative reference book states that Ireland is one of the British Isles. You are letting your petty bias and prejudice rule your actions. Don’t accuse me of starting a war – that rests with you I am afraid. If you look at the Talk page you will see that I have clearly stated (under the sub heading “Consistency”) why this is a nonsense. 08:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are a single purpose account who has decided to edit against consensus regardless. The talk page you point to doesn't in any way agree with your assertions. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Birlew

Does this page really belong here? Doesn't really seem like this guy fits the notability guidelines. GlassCobra 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he might meet the criteria at WP:BIO, specifically: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Feel free to AfD it though. I have no real opinion one way or the other. IrishGuy talk 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"The enduring historical record"? Eh, I don't think so. To the AfD! GlassCobra 20:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. :) IrishGuy talk 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On an off-topic note, how long were you active before you became an admin? GlassCobra 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I joined in July of 2005 but I didn't really become very active until April of 2006. I became an admin February 2007. IrishGuy talk 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So just under a year? Wow, even with as many edits as you have? Did you nominate yourself or were you nominated by someone else? GlassCobra 21:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a little over 14000 edits. Majorly contacted me and asked if I would be interested in becoming an admin. Are you thinking of trying for it? IrishGuy talk 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but probably not until I get to 1000 edits, I've seen some RFAs get rejected just because they don't have enough experience. Not that I think I do just yet anyhow, I've still got quite a bit to learn. Do you think I ought to? GlassCobra 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The edit number itself isn't really as importance as where those edits are. Vandal fighting is good (obviously) but article additions and cleanup are essential as well. Many will look at how many AfDs you have participated in as well as general policy discussions to ensure that you would use the tools correctly. IrishGuy talk 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand. It's tough, though; I'd certainly love to participate in AfDs and policy discussions, but there's always so much work to be done reverting vandalism! I feel like I could be on Recentchanges and Newpages 24/7, you know? GlassCobra 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I have seen various RfAs succeed for different reasons and others fail for different reasons. I don't think there is an iron clad list of things you need to have acheived. It is all relative. Simply put, you would need to be able to illustrate that you have a firm grasp of policy and are able to impliment those policies. IrishGuy talk 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to say thanks for your help and advice. I'm nearing my mark, perhaps you'll see my RfA soon. GlassCobra 09:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Brad Stone

Look, my first edit was inflammatory, but my second wasn't, and therefore should be allowed. The Fake Steve Jobs blog received 700,000 hits last month and almost all of them are pissed off at this guy Stone. Sorry about calling you friggtard, but if you read the blog you'd understand. Same thing with "restoring a sense of childlike wonder." They were both very popular phrases with the blog. Too many of us, what Brad Stone did was destroy that. If you click on the link, you can read it for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Blogs aren't reliable sources and the comment section of a blog most assuredly isn't. IrishGuy talk 02:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brad Stone

I would think comments from blog readers from a particular blog that the subject was about would constitute a reliable source as of their opinion, Eh? On the other hand it might not meet some wiki rule. But it's logic is undeniable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Anonymous comments in a blog are anything but reliable. IrishGuy talk 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sin City Masters Commission

I sort of understand why you got rid of the masters commission page it didn't have much info to explain its notability, however your reason for deleting the sin city masters commission one doesn't make sense because you deleted it for not having a proper link, but the links didn't work didn't work because you deleted the pages that they were linked to. --Draconis46 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The various Masters Comission articles were cross-promotional but none inherently had any notability or importance. IrishGuy talk 16:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Im sure there are other schools in wikipedia, by the way that I am taking your meaning of notable most schools are not notable, I have met and spoken with a lot of people that go through these schools, I don't know if I have seen students come out of a normal college that have been more changed or more able to affect change in the people around them. I find that to be very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draconis46 (talkcontribs)

You find that to be notable and that is fine...but you must understand that you aren't exactly coming from a neutral and unbiased place when you feel that way. The article subject must be notable within guidelines, not because of personal opinion. IrishGuy talk 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

alright well how do i setup the page I read it, I talked with some other editors, and they said it worked just fine so what is it that you as an editor are looking for specifically, what is it specifically that you saw was lacking, because from an unbiased point of view a school that trains people to make a difference in the lives of those around them is notable, however I must need to include more information/word things differently. thanks for any tips you can give me --Draconis46 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that this school has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? The Sin City Masters Commission article you penned was basically just a blatant advertisement whereas Masters Commission didn't outline any level of notability nor did it have any sources to corroborate any of the information. IrishGuy talk 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I can definitely do that, what made the sin city masters commission one a blatant advertisement, just trying to see what I need to keep out of it when I put up a new entry for that, I have a couple of magazines and three newspapers that I can use for sources for the sin city one, is that enough or would you recommend more. thanks again for taking time to point stuff out and help me be a productive part of this community.--Draconis46 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sin City article wasn't written like an informative encyclopedic entry, but instead read like a recruiting brochure (e.g. learning to balance this workload helps students to develop practical skills in time-management and self-discipline that will help them throughout their life.). Are the magazines and newspapers reliable sources? You will need independent reliable sources to show that the organization has notability. IrishGuy talk 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

alright will do thanks for the pointers.--Draconis46 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with my NobleWorks article


Can you help me to understand why my article about NobleWorks continues to get flagged? I modeled the entry on the American Greetings article. I think I stripped all questionable language and provided only factual information.

Thanks, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Everytime you say in the edit history that you have removed questionable didn't. You last edit was to add an infobox. The article is written like an advertisement and that is why it was tagged. Do you have any affiliation with this company? IrishGuy talk 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I like their cards so I thought I'd try my first attempt at creating an entry. How is this an advertisement while the American Greetings article isn't? And what language is still questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It has an excessive amount of external links within the article...and after looking at the newest links you added, you clearly just cut and paste a lot of the information from here. That is a copyright violation. I will remove that information now. IrishGuy talk 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So, 10 external links is excessive? Is the idea then to create internal articles about the sites I'm linking to? And I thought I had paraphrased the historical info but I agree that it was posted without a rewrite. Thanks. Agallaghernw 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to more information about proper editing? I think I've got the article worked out but don't know for sure. Thanks. Agallaghernw 00:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Old-Rite Russian Orthodox Christian Wiki

Old-Rite Russian Orthodox Christian Wiki, a free-content encyclopedia and information center about Old-Rite Russian Orthodox Christianity. This is appropriate as the Old-Rite Russian Orthodox Church is 1) a Eastren Christian Church 2) Orthodox and 3) Catholic. If you continue to delete the links to this webpage I will report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldfaith123 (talkcontribs)

You are spamming. If you continue, you will be blocked. Stop. IrishGuy talk 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No more then the people that add links to OrthodoxWiki.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldfaith123 (talkcontribs)
If you feel that others are spamming, that doesn't open the door for you to do so as well. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. IrishGuy talk 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is I am not spamming. I will also only add links to the old-rite pages. That should both of us happy.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldfaith123 (talkcontribs)
You are spamming. If you continue to add links to any articles, you will be blocked. IrishGuy talk 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You say that I am spamming, but you let corporations like Microsoft go as far as promoting their products on this website: [Microsoft Surface[13]]. All I am doing is adding a link to another online encyclopedia and information center. I do not make any money of the webpage and if you would read the pages that I added the links to you would know that the links are not inappropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldfaith123 (talkcontribs)
Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. IrishGuy talk 22:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

new message

Excuse me. What do you mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThegreatWakkorati (talkcontribs)

Please stop creating forks for no reason at all. It is disruptive. IrishGuy talk 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


The user is being disruptive violation WP:POINT please block him so he can stop adding POV. -- 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sources

If I removed sourced information, please, indicate it to me with a link and I will be glad to review it. Most of the edits that I made, make a claim without a source or write plain OR. Meanwhile, with all assumptions of good faith, I am a bit surprised for being immediately cited with alleged removal of sourced information, while this [14] or [15] are never cited. And those are just 2 out of many examples I can bring. Also, this edit [16] among many by the IP above which is reporting me, does not seem to contain any source but WP:OR. I would like to know as to how my edit there would constitute a vandalism. Thanks. Atabek 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here you removed a source and then turned around and called it "alleged". IrishGuy talk 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for removal of sources in that particular case, and glad you restored them. But I think text there needs to be corrected, it does not even fit the grammar rules, like the incomplete sentence "The website of Armenian Genocide", not to mention that saying "Azeri Genocide" is supposedly anti-Armenian is a POV and OR statement by itself. I still would like an explanation though as to why the removal of sources (and I mean 7 scholarly articles from JSTOR) at the websites I mentioned above is simply unnoticed? Thanks. Atabek 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, in the first edit it was fully discussed on the talk page...a discussion you were a part of so you are fully aware of that fact. The second edit, someone restored text you removed and added references. How is that vandalism? IrishGuy talk 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear IrishGuy, at Talk:Khachen, I was part of the discussion but neither discussant ever came to compromise but chose instead to revert the page and remove legitimate scholarly references, one of them to an Oxford scholar, C.J.F. Dowsett. I don't see how my awareness of the issue is to bring about a solution. The user who initiated the campaign for removal, i.e. User:Anatolmethanol, was actually identified as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Again, I don't see why making a revert removing entire content of article with scholarly references during discussion on the talk page is considered a OK, subsequent removal of POV tag [17] is considered OK, while my accidental removal of most likely amateurish and zealot/POV website references is considered not OK.
On the second page, if you paid a little bit of attention, actually a big chunk of text which is called a quote from an article by Abbott was simply removed in the edit, again without any agreement.
I am not trying to be argumentative and give you a hard time, just want some level of fairness, because it's almost impossible to edit these pages recently due to wave of sockpuppetry, unequal parole restrictions of edit warriors (or disputing parties, whichever fits better), factless demagoguery and false reporting to make a point. Atabek 23:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Another 2 reverts with removal of sourced material [18], [19], the second one coming with an interesting "explanatory" comment. The discussion at Talk:Armenische Legion is insufficient by the first user, and does not even appear in another revert by the second user. Atabek 14:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the reason why the material was removed is because User:Atabek was misusing the sources. I really hope you could give us your third-party view in the Armenische Legion, because the discussion with him isn't going anywhere. --VartanM 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


I am new to Wikipedia. I have a question: If i put some articles about little known North American and South American classical composers (living or not) Wikipedia will publish them?

Thanks in advance, Carlos Caicedo-Russi

Crcaicedo 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)crcaicedo

As long as they meet the criteria for inclusion. You can find out more at WP:BIO. IrishGuy talk 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I couldn't help but notice that you have deleted my article on the international corporate finance group TWICE. I am curious to know why. You cite spam both times but the article itself does not fall under the wikipedia critera for spam. the ICFG is indeed a notable company in the field of mergers and aquisitions which I am currently in the process of improving seeing as it "requires the attention of an expert on the subject". I feel that it is necessary to include a reference to the ICFG in the M&A article in order for it to be accurate as possible. Furthermore, the ICFG is a non-profit organization that is specifically interested in the education process and academia for M&A, not making money. Seeing as it is one of the most foremost organizations of its kind in an industry where there is very little academic works I am having difficulty believeing that this organization is considered not notable. Please retrieve the article or at least inform me as to why you feel it does not follow wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. --Markrobbins12 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Being non-profit doesn't preclude it from being an advertisement. With sentences like ...ICFG is a ground-breaking organization... and In the field of M&A, the ICFG is crucial... and Where such organizations may have been overlooked in the past, it is simply careless to do so now... it was a blatant advertisement. Further more, you seriously need to read WP:COI and stop creating/editing articles where you have a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 17:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did read WP:COI but I am getting the impression that you haven't. Please take note that, "When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict." which I have not done especially considering all of the contributions I've made to the M&A page. If you visit this page then you will see that these articles where I supposedly have a conflict on interest are internal links that I have made simply so that those reading about M&A will have a more wholistic perspective on the subject.

Furthermore, it seems that you may have forgoten that "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." This is why i am so confused as to why you have been deleting my articles and posting COIs on them. As far as I can see by reading WP:COI, there is no reason to justify a conflict of interest seeing as I follow all the critera for having a balanced and impartial opinion. If there is something that I have overlooked in the COI explaination please let me know and I will fix it. I'm just confused because I am under the impression that having a well sourced/cited article, written by an expert on the subject (as the M&A section requests), is not a conflict of interest ESPECIALLY seeing as I have no connection to groups like M&A Today, the ICFG and M&A Source other then being involved in the same industry as them.

The only reason I can see for your actions might be my poor rhetoric which you have mentioned above. I'm in M&A, not english and so issues like this will no doubt arise but given the friendly creed of wikipedia, I was led to assume that people like yourself would simply take it upon themselves to edit articles like mine instead of simply deleting them. I would assume that people like yourself would be more prone to do this especially seeing as I am a relativly new user and so i am more likely to be exposed to problems like this. So, please either remove your tags on these articles or tell me what I need to add to them in order to eliminate any potential COI critera.

So its been a couple days and I'm wondering why you haven't taken the time to respond to me yet... Should I talk to another admin about this instead or what? --Markrobbins12 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So I noticed that instead of adressing my concerns with you tagging my articles as COI, you just tagged more of them as you found them. Be aware that I will be contacting other admin about your misconduct. --Markrobbins12 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Repda206

Papa November has reported a suspected sock puppet of two accounts that you have blocked. Could you please take a look and block the third account if it matches the pattern? Shalom Hello 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Awful administrator

I don't get along with my admins around here, and i'm sorry to say that you're now one of them. Despite not lifting my block, even though it was clearly unwarranted and issued without going through the proper process, you failed to even consider the vile personal attacks lodged against me by PeeJay, and take action against him for those attacks. Perhaps if he had called you a "bitter cunt" or said that you were "abused as a child" you would have done something about it? Batman2005 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, i won't even consider WP:CIV when people are allowed to post that type of bullshit on my talk page about me and are not blocked...even though they have been warned multiple times about it. Batman2005 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone else's behavior doesn't justify your own. Your unblock request was denied on the basis that even in your request you couldn't remain civil. If you don't abide by WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK you risk being blocked again. IrishGuy talk 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, instead of blocking PeeJay for his blatant violation of policy, you're threatening me with blocks. You're cool. Batman2005 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Find somewhere else to troll. IrishGuy talk 00:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Now i'm a troll?? Lets make a deal, i'll read WP:CIV and abide by it, if you read [20] and abide by it. You can't expect me to abide by a policy while you blatantly ignore another. I'll be civil when PeeJay is blocked for his personal attacks. Batman2005 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you will be blocked for it. You are being willfully disruptive...and you know it. IrishGuy talk 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You aren't in a position to "deal" or blackmail. You don't get to willfully violate policy until you get your way. IrishGuy talk 00:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll continue to edit as I see fit. You apparently feel that you're in a position to disregard violations of policy and to pick and choose which ones have to be followed. Since you refuse to acknowledge that PeeJay violated policy and punish him accordingly, then I'll refuse to acknowledge policy as he does. Batman2005 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you will be blocked for it. You are being willfully disruptive...and you know it. IrishGuy talk 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
So wait, you're saying that ME being willfully disruptive is grounds for a block. But PeeJay, also being willfully disruptive AND personally attacking not only me, but other users, ISN'T grounds for a block? All i'm asking for is a REASON as to WHY PeeJay HAS NOT been blocked. A simple request, why is it that I got blocked for violating ONE policy while PeeJay DID NOT get blocked for violating ANOTHER? Surely you must agree that calling an editor a "bitter cunt" and saying they were "abused as a child" are personal attacks. Given his history of them and the fact that he's already been warned, WHY hasn't he been blocked for you have ANY reason? I don't think it's too much to ask to expect an answer and to expect ALL users to be treated the same when violations of policy occurr. Batman2005 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


That's odd. It doesn't seem to meet the duck test enough for me to block, at least, but I think I'll add it to the existing checkuser. The edit is certainly odd. Natalie 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any edits to Sam Harris from that user...but that user doesn't seem to have run into the other editor and so the comment seems to have no frame of reference...except it is the same type of comment all the Sam Harris socks have made. IrishGuy talk 23:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I recently linked a member who was being rather smug to the meta:Don't be a dick essay, and before I knew it I was being threatened with being reported for making personal attacks against that member. Was the member in question right to threaten me like that, and if not, what can I do about such threats in the future? - PeeJay 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Refering someone to that essay isn't a personal attack in and of itself. It would depend upon how you worded your comment. It appears that you two have problems getting along. As such, I would recommend you simply avoid each other when editing. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Referring somebdoy to that essay CAN be construed as a personal attack. Simply put, if PeeJay had never called me a "bitter cunt" or said that I was "abused as a child" I would not have construed his linkage to that essay as a personal attack. As it is though, he has shown nothing but a history of vile and disgusting personal attacks, and I take his linking me to a page talking about being a dick, to be a personal attack. It appears PeeJay thinks I should just forget about his past transgressions and assume that he's reformed. It doesn't matter if he thinks it's not, it doesn't matter if you think it's not...I think it is and if he links it again, i'll report it, and based on his past history of personal attacks, it will probably be seen as another. Batman2005 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply, man. I'm going to be honest with you; when I linked said member to the essay, my comment consisted merely of the words "Don't be a dick", which were linked to the essay. Looking back on it now, I can see how it would be perceived as a personal attack. I would agree that the other member and I have conflicting views on a number of issues, but we are currently hammering them out (without resorting to a slanging match, I might add). Thanks for your help anyway. - PeeJay 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

About my article...

Mindez1 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! As english is not my first language, I failed to understand the meaning of "Biographical article that does not assert significance". Could you please explain it in a way that I might understand? You deleted my article "Mindez".

Edit: And I don't see what's wrong with adding an article about myself, as long as the information is correct and neutral?

Writing an article about yourself is a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 00:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but that's bullshit. All my information was confirmed by other sources, that I had no personal influense on. You make no sense.----- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindez1 (talkcontribs)

The policy isn't "bullshit". It is there to stop people from using Wikipedia to promote you were doing. IrishGuy talk 00:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
So, basicly what you're saying, is that the policy says, that if I want (As a celebrity in a minor community with less than 100 000 members) myself published on this website, I need to ask someone else to do it?
That doesn't make any sense at all as long as I have neutral references.
And, it seems you are accusing me for insulting the policy, when I was only saying that "Writing an article about yourself is a COI" was bullshit. That, as well, is bullshit. Mindez1
Actually, writing an article about yourself is the very definition of conflict of interest. Asking someone else to write an article for you would still violate WP:COI. Please don't attempt to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. IrishGuy talk 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, you managed to piss me off. And maybe it's not your fault, maybe it's the community's. Either way, I don't really care. I'm trying to do something constructive here, and you just whack me down. Well, well, the world's unfair. No hard feelings.
I guess this is something that you call "hall of fame" website, where only the well-known, well-reputated members get to post anything. I'm not going to waste any time trying to get into this hollow kind of family, if that's how it is. I also tried, previously, to add some valuable information about a swedish hockey-player (Another account), but it was erased after a couple of seconds. I'm just glad I'm not addicted to this site, although I wonder how anyone could be that... I'll think twice before trying to help someone out through this website again, thanks for the interesting lesson.
Now, could you please explain to me, before I leave, why this stupid rule exists when one has got undeniable proof about what is right and what is wrong? I just can't figure it out myself. And would it be alright to post only exact quotations instaid of general text? Mindez1
Giving the blind side, are we? Mindez1
I gave you a link to the called it "bullshit" because it doesn't assist you in promoting yourself. You continue ranting and railing against Wikipedia and even state you are done with editing here. Why need I bother conversing with you? IrishGuy talk 01:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Here we go with the accusings again... Sorry if I made you sad about the website and stuff...
Alright, so in other words, you don't have an answer? Mindez1
This is the last response I will give you: you didn't make me "sad". I see no point in continuing when you are clearly just attempting to waste my time. IrishGuy talk 01:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Is User:Merik11 spamming? I'm thinking he is but I'm not quite sure enough without someone else checking first. -WarthogDemon 02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You got yourself a spammer there. Edits rolled back, advert articles deleted. IrishGuy talk 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) And it looks like you got an unusual vandal here yourself: [21]. :) -WarthogDemon 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for catching that. :) IrishGuy talk 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can You Please Clarify Your Criteria and Decision


Maybe I just don't understand your definition/interpretation of spam. I was working on a couple articles in unison so maybe this appeared purely like spam because of proximity/time? While I did include a link to my personal content, is this automatically spam just by that definition? If that's the case make a policy that says absolutely no linking to your own content period. If my content is relevant to the discussion at hand what's wrong with the link pray tell? It was at the bottom of all links so it was not being blatant first and did have a purpose second, as the overall intent was quid-pro-quo...i.e. provide something I felt was useful and quality to contribute, and also link it to my site which is about the same type of stuff useful for the audience so what's wrong with that?

I even wrote an article about this quid-pro-quo nature of the web and blogs at my site. Please read it. My site is not just some ad junk site to be sure. I feel that looking at the content I provided and reading it in less than a minute which your logs appear to show considering the review time and the time someone alerted you to that it might be spam was not fair to truly evaluate the site in the time it should have been given for reading and evaluating the content that I did provide, since I did actually post 2 things worthwhile in my opinion, one of which is related to TQM but was missing in wikipedia and should be there. The other is a related topic, something I try to promote on my site, and is something that I believe is on the rise and should be. Just because I have some google and amazon ads on my site that these link to make my site a junk site since I provide qality content, many sites like businessweek and cio for instance do the same.

  1. 02:53, 13 August 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Quality Movement" (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising)
  2. 02:53, 13 August 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Quality blogging" (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising)

Could you at least keep the content I created and just take out the single link to my site then? A shame you all aren't quid pro quo because legit content seems to be difficult to add, and it seems other articles I have looked at have done the same as I did but stayed legit because the provided good content. Relevancy was the key. Incentive is helpful, everyone winds.

What specifically fit your definition of spam that caused the deletion and would you possibly re-consider the content and quality of the writing? I was also going to post 2 terms to your list of blog terms, related to my posts which all fits together well.

If I have relevant content that could be linked to, who decides there and using what criteria, whether or not it is allowed and legit?

Thank you for your time,

merik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merik11 (talkcontribs)

You were spamming your blog into articles as well as creating articles with the sole purpose of advertising and promoting your blog. Please don't. IrishGuy talk 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


I think I understand your interpretation, after some more reading and browsing some other disucssions you've had with others, though I still am apt to say quid-pro-quo when quality and relevancy is the case would be better. But it's your rules your site so who am I to change that...anyhow, so let me ask, If my link is removed, thus removing coi as you may see it, can you keep the content of my posts at least? just wanted to ask...thanks,

Merik11 03:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)merik

The content is original research which isn't encyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Now listen Mr. Wiki Police,

May be you are a flexible person and ready to accept newer definitions. (Please ignore if this is the case.)

But if not, then you need to learn some new lessons. Why should only Bob Dylan and Neil Young be included in the examples? Why not the other ones, lesser famous ones, or even the non famous ones? Is this a place to cite examples only of the internationally famous people? What parameters do you have to define "international fame"? And what are they, gods? Then they should have the same capabilities like the unknown artistes. And, what are these unknown experts, stupids?!

Secondly, if YOU don't know the names of a few people, then are you going to remove them? Here's what you should do. Read the biographies of other people and increase your gk.

Don't do that again.

Good boy.

--HDWitch 09:06, August 13, 2007 (UTC)

(Article: Harmonica-guitarist)

Please read WP:OWN. You don't get to tell people what they can and cannot edit. Wikipedia is not a venue for people to advertise yourself. The article is nothing more than original research and probably should be deleted anyway...but it certainly shouldn't be a link farm for non-notable musicians to advertise themselves. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Msukach's sockpuppets

Hi there,

I noticed that you deleted articles from user:Msukach, being nonsense and advertising.

I also noticed that user:Ms012 and user:Ms789 and user:Ms198 have been creating very similar articles: a bunch of marketing speak, no useful content whatsoever, and links to user:Msukach's company.

Could you please deal with this issue? Regards, Ivansanchez 15:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... given his record, I already notified WP:AIV. Ivansanchez 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD prod removed

Hi. An AfD prod was removed by an anon user at [22]. I do not know how to fix this problem Do you? Bearian 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) YesY I restored it and warned the Anon. Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of myDataBus. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ollie990 19:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


How the hell do you decide it is an advertisement or not? A person unknown to you may be a very famous person in some region. Now is that the freedom to edit you are talking about?

Should the names of people included as examples on this website be of those who are famous, or of those who are SKILLED?

As far as deleting the whole article is concerned, I am doing it for you. But I would like to say, DON'T ever include this article again, or such an article by the same name, since your view that a "harmonica-guitarist" is such a 'common' subject that it needs no pages in an encyclopaedia, not even one. I'm sure you will never let it happen. (But I am also sure I'll contact you when this happens!)

But also remember, that if somehow you become very willing to include such an article on this website (of course by some other author) in the future, then NEVER to include the same names used as examples in this article. There are people out there who need to be asked for their names to be included on a website. And sometimes some of them are maniacs... they sue you badly for damages if you publish their names without their legal permission on paper... you never know. After all everybody is not dying to become famous, to come into the eyes of the world; they are content with themselves. For this you would need to remember all the names in the article; note them down on a piece of paper and dump them in a trunk.

Good Luck.

--HDWitch 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make legal threats. IrishGuy talk 01:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ran lord

Should that not have been a redirect to Ran Online after it was moved to Ran Lord? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a move, it was a creation of a one sentence stub devoid of context. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? IrishGuy talk 11:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I ment move it to Ran Lord and then change it to a redirect like other minor figures from games and movies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Gotcha. IrishGuy talk 11:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speak nice and friendly. Removing duplicate text is not vandalism (and also resizing an article bigger than 47 K)! Phone1010 11:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From The Witchwood


I'm very much a newbie here. I've read the introductions on how to create an article etc but I'm a bit stumped. You deleted a very short article of mine (From the witchwood). I understand the reason for deletion but the article was unfinished. Is there an area for "Work in progress"? Regards Witchwooder 13:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can use your sandbox. GuardTheGuards 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've read a bit more (there's such a lot a background reading to do isn't there?) and have set up my own sandboxes for wip. Witchwooder 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Game Descriptions

Other computer games have wiki pages don't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.widdowson (talkcontribs)

The article was a blatant advertisement. Beyond that, you have a clear conflict of interest with the subject. IrishGuy talk 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


It is not a matter of POV, but a matter of style: Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Titles

Pope is only spelled with a capital letter in certain circumstances. This true of all bishops, kings, emperors, patriarchs, etc.

Style is important if we are to get the article to GA or FA. Cheers. -- SECisek 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and you are incorrect: The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun: “Hirohito was Emperor of Japan” and “Louis XVI was King of France”. Pope should be in caps. IrishGuy talk 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
So, when wouldn't pope or bishop be spelled with a capital? I work on many bishop/king articles and I have been told that the only time it is would be when it is coupled with a proper noun as in the examples you cite above, but not the ones you reverted. Please explain. -- SECisek 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
King of France is a formal name of office, king isn't. There aren't various Pope's at any given time as there are kings...just one. As such, "Pope" is a name of office. IrishGuy talk 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
For other popes, see Pope (disambiguation). But if it's obvious that the discussion is of the Roman Catholic Pope, then capitalize. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a judgement call, there is a rule. I just checked my copy of Richard McBrien's Lives of the Popes and your usage is not supported in his work. I check several other Roman Catholic books in my library, some old enough to have Imprimatur and Nihil obstat, and still your position is not supported in general usage. Can you point me to your source for style? I may be mistaken, but having checked a few books, it seems not. -- SECisek 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I donno what to say , Thanks man for keeping the article Ancient Arabia clean Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind protecting (or semi-protecting ) the article for a while until we finish the discussions ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate external links

Why do you consider an inappropriate external link under the Punk Rock category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileywhiplash (talkcontribs)

It is a social networking site and therefore fails WP:EL. IrishGuy talk 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no right removing my link to while having the other links that are not as valid. I place my link as "Punk Rock Community" which is exactly what it is. I have been a member of the punk community since 1977 and my site is a valid effort to keep the punk rock community alive. Do you own one of the sites listed as an external link? It's seems like you do. How can you possibly say that Distorted Magazine modern punk rock magazine is a more valid external link than What gives you the right? If you want to get together to find out who knows more about punk rock then let's do it. I promise you I have been an active member of the scene a lot longer than you will ever be.

Now your deleting my replies? Who the hell do you think you are? I cannot believe that you are given the right to moderate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileywhiplash (talkcontribs)

Look above, I haven't deleted your comment. IrishGuy talk 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My second post was deleted.

The Wiki guideline says: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. My site is a punk rock specific community. Yes there is a network of PUNK ROCKERS. How else can they be informed? Not here entirely. I am not linking to a page on MySpace or a disussion in a forum or an article in USENET, I am trying to add a link to an entire community of punk rockers that join together to make a punk rock scene. If punk rock had to rely on Wikipedia as there only source of online networking then the subject would be over. Punks need sites like to learn from each other and bond as contributers into the movement. I don't understand how you can have final say on this and I will find out such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileywhiplash (talkcontribs)

Actually, your claim that your post was deleted was your second reply. Your link is a social networking site, it is completely irrelevant that it caters specifically to punk is still a networking site and as such it fails WP:EL. IrishGuy talk 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello, my account (senorerik) was used by another user that wasn't me and now i am banned indefinitely. I wish to be unblocked and I guarantee that the account will never be used for vandalism again.

p.s. my account name was Senorerik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The account was created 19:22, 1 July 2007. Two minutes later is began creating nonsense articles. You expect me to believe you created an account and two minutes later it was hijacked by someone else and used for nefarious aims? I don't think so. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanity pictures?

Had a question, was hoping you could help me out: Are pictures of onesself allowed on Wikipedia? I've seen lots of user pages where the users include pictures of themselves. A little digging through old image deletion archives (ex. 1 and 2) reveals mostly pictures deleted for vanity reasons also include disuse; however, according to WP:NOT#USER and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, it seems to me that vanity is a good enough reason alone to delete pictures. Thoughts? Also, would you mind dropping me a line back on my talk page when you reply? We can have the whole conversation here again, but just let me know when you reply, if you wouldn't mind. GlassCobra 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but my question is really about user pages. Are people allowed to use them there? Technically, the page isn't theirs. Just curious. GlassCobra 22:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. GlassCobra 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi there This was a copywriter hired by the artiste's website designer. The content was taken from the artiste but he hasn't seen the article till date. Please delete this account to prevent any misuse through this account. The password is first three alphanumeric chars. Hope the threat business is also over now, since I hadn't read the rules, which already nullified the content of the article, hence the 'threat'. That is to say, it never started. Thx. --HDWitch 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to put together some stuff on Very PC and the Oil cooled computer aka Iceotope, recently featured on slashdot, but everything I do keeps getting deleted, what's the problem? Petehopton 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All of your edits have been promotional in nature and wording. IrishGuy talk 00:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)